A recent video of John McCain unable to say that it's unfair for insurance companies to cover Viagra but not birth control left pro-choicers rejoicing.  For a long time now, we've been fighting to get the word out that right wing fanatics are hostile to contraception, and now we have first rate evidence of a politician pandering to anti-contraception forces.  Now the doubters will have a lot less ground to work with. Now we're that much closer to exposing the agenda of the anti-choice  movement, which is not just anti-abortion -- but anti-contraception, anti-sex education, and homophobic. 

On this issue, pro-choicers should have a slam dunk, right?  Ninety-eight percent of women will use contraception at some point in their lives, and presumably most of the men who have partnered with women who use it support that right as well.  Most advocates for any issue wish they had that kind of broad base of support.  When people hear that such a popular right is under attack, surely they will swarm as one voting bloc that gives new meaning to the phrase "vast majority" to retaliate against a narrow band of extremists, right? I'd like to think so.  Most of the time, I do think that we have widespread support for the right to use contraception, support that will eagerly fight to support that right under attack from a very small minority. 

But then I saw this video with Bill O'Reilly defending McCain, and I started to feel less sure of how firm the pro-choice ground is on this issue.  O'Reilly doesn't come right out and attack the right to use the birth control pill.  But he does define it as if it's a luxury item, in fact putting it in the same category as eating at a restaurant. (Women's choice to have sexual intercourse, according to O'Reilly, is a luxury, but for men, it's a medical necessity.  No, really.)  The double standard nauseates, but the framing of the issue will win over a lot of people who think of themselves as pro-choice on contraception.  The implication that sluts have to pay for their own sinful behavior will resonate with a lot of people, as will the idea that if you can't afford the $30-$50 a month out of pocket for birth control pills, you don't deserve to have sex. 

The rule to remember with anti-choicers is that they're crazy but not stupid.  They know that openly advocating for a ban on contraception won't work, but they do believe, with good reason, that they can chip away at the right to use contraception slowly so that people don't even see it coming.  After all, they've had a lot of practice doing this to abortion rights, which also enjoy the support of the majority.   

Most people see that Roe v. Wade hasn't been overturned outright and feel secure with the right to abortion.  Little do they know that the incremental chipping away at abortion rights has, for a lot of women, meant that Roe doesn't exist in any practical way.  If you live far away from an abortion clinic, or can't afford an abortion, or have to go through waiting periods and other forms of legal harassment, the amount of effort and money you put into getting an abortion doesn't differ from what you'd have to put out if abortion was illegal.  For them, the difference between legal and illegal abortion is a technicality on paper, not a lived experience.  But with it being technically legal, most Americans are complacent on the issue. 

Anti-choicers fully intend to use the same strategy to chip away at your right to contraception, getting rid of it in practical terms for many women while the rest of us rest on our laurels, unaware of how much ground we've lost. We know their methods, because of the abortion rights war.  Target vulnerable populations first, people with little political power, such as young women, women of color, and poor women.  Redefining hormonal birth control not as a medication necessary for a healthy life, but as a luxury that should only be available to those who can pay for it, is a big step in targeting the young and poor. Age restrictions on things like emergency contraception also play a role. Young women, who are the least likely to have adequate experience using condoms (leading to breakage), and are the most likely to be raped, have the greatest need for emergency contraception, but if they're under 18, they're out of luck, thanks to anti-choice tactics.  They'll have to get that abortion instead, in  many cases.  But they don't have much political power, so they need the rest of us to stand up for them. 

Rural women and poor women are the main targets of "conscience clauses," which aren't about religious freedom as advertised, but about restricting access to birth control pills, one judgmental horror show of a fundamentalist Christian pretending to be a professional pharmacist at a time.  For urban women with a decent amount of money, going to the next pharmacist who's willing to do his damn job doesn't take much effort.  But for women living in isolated areas, or who don't have the time or travel range in the city because of poverty, being refused service in a pharmacy could mean the difference between getting the pills and not.  

Unfortunately, I can easily see a huge number of Americans who technically support the right to contraception rolling over for the incremental strategy.  We are indeed frogs sitting in pots of water on this issue.  Anti-choicers aren't going to turn the heat up to 10 right away, but will gradually turn it up a little (deprive teenagers and poor women of their access and then their rights) so that we don't notice it, until it's too late and we're all boiling in water.  But it doesn't have to be that way.  With pro-choicers out there spreading the word and making the links between things like this John McCain video and the crazies who are out to take away your birth control pills, maybe we can turn down the heat.